Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

 

[ima]

Creationists are simple minded people who need magic in their lives, even if it's fake magic.

 

[Hollie]

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

 

[Hollie]

Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!

Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.

He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.

you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.

Hollie, reality escapes you.

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

 

[Hollie]

I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.

If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.

Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.

He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.













.

There are many gaps that go ignored by their side. They have been spinning ever since punctuated equilibrium when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. The reason it was proposed because fossils showed they went from non complex to complex absent of transitional fossils. It was like they appeared suddenly. That evidence fits with creation.

...and as usual, you sputter along with completely irrelevant and unsupported babbling.

 

[UltimateReality]

Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.

Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.

Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.

Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.

 

[UltimateReality]

Creationists are simple minded people who need magic in their lives, even if it's fake magic.

Would that be as opposed to real magic??

 

[UltimateReality]

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.

From Wiki:

Pasteur and Darwin

"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

 

[UltimateReality]

you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.

Hollie, reality escapes you.

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

 

[Hollie]

Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.

Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.

Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.

Melodrama! How cute.

Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, reality escapes you.

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

The "angry fundie", persona.

Ain't they cute?

 

[Hollie]

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.

From Wiki:

Pasteur and Darwin

"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Pathetic.

The usual cutting and pasting from the science loathing fundie creationists who can't defend her appeals to the gods.

 

[UltimateReality]

Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.

Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.

Melodrama! How cute.

Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.

LIAR. Oh you poor dear. Are you so stupid as to think that you can make such nonsensical claims, not back them up, and then no one will notice? REALLY Pathetic.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.

From Wiki:

Pasteur and Darwin

"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Pathetic.

The usual cutting and pasting from the science loathing fundie creationists who can't defend her appeals to the gods.

Yep, the usual cutting and pasting that continues to show your claims are totally detached from reality.

 

[UltimateReality]

That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

The "angry fundie", persona.

Ain't they cute?

The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

 

[Hollie]

Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.

Melodrama! How cute.

Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.

LIAR. Oh you poor dear. Are you so stupid as to think that you can make such nonsensical claims, not back them up, and then no one will notice? REALLY Pathetic.

Oh my. The angry fundie has made her typical nonsensical claims and when pressed to support them, finds herself totally incapable.

 

[Hollie]

Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.

Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic. If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Hollie]

So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?

The "angry fundie", persona.

Ain't they cute?

The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?

That would define your claims to gods which cause you to react with childish responses when required to support your groundless claims to supernaturalism.

 

[daws101]

I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.

since it's not conjecture the answer stands.
first there is no should in geology...
you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
discribe what kind of dating method it was,
better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.

What you don't understand, they found carbon inside the stones. Carbon only lasts so long they know this,They know it can't last longer then a few thousand years. Once again you give an answer that really doesn't answer the question and it's based on conjecture.

dodge ....
again ywc pulls misinformation for an unscientific source The Age of the Earth
making the question invalid...